The programs focused on what historians refer to as the "3 Rs": relief for the unemployed and poor, recovery of the economy back to normal levels and reform of the financial system to prevent a repeat depression.[1] The New Deal produced a political realignment, making the Democratic Party the majority (as well as the party that held the White House for seven out of the nine presidential terms from 1933 to 1969) with its base in liberal ideas, the South, traditional Democrats, big city machines and the newly empowered labor unions and ethnic minorities. The Republicans were split, with conservatives opposing the entire New Deal as hostile to business and economic growth and liberals in support. The realignment crystallized into the New Deal coalition that dominated presidential elections into the 1960s while the opposing conservative coalition largely controlled Congress in domestic affairs from 1937 to 1964.[2]

By 1936, the term "liberal" typically was used for supporters of the New Deal and "conservative" for its opponents.[3] From 1934 to 1938, Roosevelt was assisted in his endeavors by a "pro-spender" majority in Congress (drawn from two-party, competitive, non-machine, progressive and left party districts). In the 1938 midterm election, Roosevelt and his liberal supporters lost control of Congress to the bipartisan conservative coalition.[4] Many historians distinguish between a First New Deal (1933–1934) and a Second New Deal (1935–1938), with the second one more liberal and more controversial.

The economic downturn of 1937–1938 and the bitter split between the American Federation of Labor (AFL) and Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO) labor unions led to major Republican gains in Congress in 1938. Conservative Republicans and Democrats in Congress joined in the informal conservative coalition. By 1942–1943, they shut down relief programs such as the WPA and the CCC and blocked major liberal proposals. Nonetheless, Roosevelt turned his attention to the war effort and won reelection in 1940–1944. Furthermore, the Supreme Court declared the NRA and the first version of the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) unconstitutional, but the AAA was rewritten and then upheld. Republican president Dwight D. Eisenhower (1953–1961) left the New Deal largely intact, even expanding it in some areas. In the 1960s, Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society used the New Deal as inspiration for a dramatic expansion of liberal programs, which Republican Richard Nixon generally retained. However, after 1974 the call for deregulation of the economy gained bipartisan support.[9] The New Deal regulation of banking (Glass–Steagall Act) lasted until it was suspended in the 1990s.

From 1929 to 1933 manufacturing output decreased by one third,[10] which economists call the Great Contraction. Prices fell by 20%, causing deflation that made repaying debts much harder. Unemployment in the United States increased from 4% to 25%.[11] Additionally, one-third of all employed persons were downgraded to working part-time on much smaller paychecks. In the aggregate, almost 50% of the nation's human work-power was going unused.[12]

Before the New Deal, there was no insurance on deposits at banks.[13] When thousands of banks closed, depositors lost their savings as at that time there was no national safety net, no public unemployment insurance and no Social Security.[14] Relief for the poor was the responsibility of families, private charity and local governments, but as conditions worsened year by year demand skyrocketed and their combined resources increasingly fell far short of demand.[12]

The depression had devastated the nation. As Roosevelt took the oath of office at noon on March 4, 1933, all state governors had authorized bank holidays or restricted withdrawals—many Americans had little or no access to their bank accounts.[15][16] Farm income had fallen by over 50% since 1929. An estimated 844,000 non-farm mortgages had been foreclosed between 1930–1933, out of five million in all.[17] Political and business leaders feared revolution and anarchy. Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr., who remained wealthy during the Depression, stated years later that "in those days I felt and said I would be willing to part with half of what I had if I could be sure of keeping, under law and order, the other half".[18]

Upon accepting the 1932 Democratic nomination for president, Roosevelt promised "a new deal for the American people", saying:[21][22]

Throughout the nation men and women, forgotten in the political philosophy of the Government, look to us here for guidance and for more equitable opportunity to share in the distribution of national wealth... I pledge myself to a new deal for the American people. This is more than a political campaign. It is a call to arms.[23]

1935 cartoon by Vaughn Shoemaker in which he parodied the New Deal as a card game with alphabetical agencies

Roosevelt entered office without a specific set of plans for dealing with the Great Depression—so he improvised as Congress listened to a very wide variety of voices.[24] Among Roosevelt's more famous advisers was an informal "Brain Trust", a group that tended to view pragmatic government intervention in the economy positively.[25] His choice for Secretary of Labor, Frances Perkins, greatly influenced his initiatives. Her list of what her priorities would be if she took the job illustrates: "a forty-hour workweek, a minimum wage, worker's compensation, unemployment compensation, a federal law banning child labor, direct federal aid for unemployment relief, Social Security, a revitalized public employment service and health insurance".[26]

The New Deal policies drew from many different ideas proposed earlier in the 20th century. Assistant Attorney General Thurman Arnold led efforts that hearkened back to an anti-monopoly tradition rooted in American politics by figures such as Andrew Jackson and Thomas Jefferson. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, an influential adviser to many New Dealers, argued that "bigness" (referring, presumably, to corporations) was a negative economic force, producing waste and inefficiency. However, the anti-monopoly group never had a major impact on New Deal policy.[27] Other leaders such as Hugh S. Johnson of the NRA took ideas from the Woodrow Wilson Administration, advocating techniques used to mobilize the economy for World War I. They brought ideas and experience from the government controls and spending of 1917–1918. Other New Deal planners revived experiments suggested in the 1920s, such as the TVA. The "First New Deal" (1933–1934) encompassed the proposals offered by a wide spectrum of groups (not included was the Socialist Party, whose influence was all but destroyed).[28] This first phase of the New Deal was also characterized by fiscal conservatism (see Economy Act, below) and experimentation with several different, sometimes contradictory, cures for economic ills.

There were dozens of new agencies created by Roosevelt through Executive Orders. They are typically known[to whom?] by their alphabetical initials.

The American people were generally extremely dissatisfied with the crumbling economy, mass unemployment, declining wages and profits and especially Herbert Hoover's policies such as the Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act and the Revenue Act of 1932. Roosevelt entered office with enormous political capital. Americans of all political persuasions were demanding immediate action and Roosevelt responded with a remarkable series of new programs in the "first hundred days" of the administration, in which he met with Congress for 100 days. During those 100 days of lawmaking, Congress granted every request Roosevelt asked and passed a few programs (such as the FDIC to insure bank accounts) that he opposed. Ever since, presidents have been judged against Roosevelt for what they accomplished in their first 100 days. Walter Lippmann famously noted:

At the end of February we were a congeries of disorderly panic-stricken mobs and factions. In the hundred days from March to June we became again an organized nation confident of our power to provide for our own security and to control our own destiny.[29]

The economy had hit bottom in March 1933 and then started to expand. Economic indicators show the economy reached its lowest point in the first days of March, then began a steady, sharp upward recovery. Thus the Federal Reserve Index of Industrial Production sank to its lowest point of 52.8 in July 1932 (with 1935–1939 = 100) and was practically unchanged at 54.3 in March 1933. However, by July 1933 it reached 85.5, a dramatic rebound of 57% in four months. Recovery was steady and strong until 1937. Except for employment, the economy by 1937 surpassed the levels of the late 1920s. The Recession of 1937 was a temporary downturn. Private sector employment, especially in manufacturing, recovered to the level of the 1920s, but failed to advance further until the war. The U.S. population was 124,840,471 in 1932 and 128,824,829 in 1937, an increase of 3,984,468.[30] The ratio of these numbers, times the number of jobs in 1932, means there was a need for 938,000 more 1937 jobs to maintain the same employment level.

The Economy Act, drafted by Budget Director Lewis Williams Douglas, was passed on March 14, 1933. The act proposed to balance the "regular" (non-emergency) federal budget by cutting the salaries of government employees and cutting pensions to veterans by fifteen percent. It saved $500 million per year and reassured deficit hawks, such as Douglas, that the new President was fiscally conservative. Roosevelt argued there were two budgets: the "regular" federal budget, which he balanced; and the emergency budget, which was needed to defeat the depression. It was imbalanced on a temporary basis.[31]

Roosevelt initially favored balancing the budget, but soon found himself running spending deficits to fund his numerous programs. However, Douglas—rejecting the distinction between a regular and emergency budget—resigned in 1934 and became an outspoken critic of the New Deal. Roosevelt strenuously opposed the Bonus Bill that would give World War I veterans a cash bonus. Congress finally passed it over his veto in 1936 and the Treasury distributed $1.5 billion in cash as bonus welfare benefits to 4 million veterans just before the 1936 election.[32]

New Dealers never accepted the Keynesian argument for government spending as a vehicle for recovery. Most economists of the era, along with Henry Morgenthau of the Treasury Department, rejected Keynesian solutions and favored balanced budgets.[33]

Crowd at New York's American Union Bank during a bank run early in the Great Depression

Roosevelt's ebullient public personality, conveyed through his declaration that "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself" and his "fireside chats" on the radio did a great deal to help restore the nation's confidence

At the beginning of the Great Depression, the economy was destabilized by bank failures followed by credit crunches. The initial reasons were substantial losses in investment banking, followed by bank runs. Bank runs occurred when a large number of customers withdrew their deposits because they believed the bank might become insolvent. As the bank run progressed, it generated a self-fulfilling prophecy: as more people withdrew their deposits, the likelihood of default increased and this encouraged further withdrawals.

Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz have argued that the drain of money out of the banking system caused the monetary supply to shrink, forcing the economy to likewise shrink. As credit and economic activity diminished, price deflation followed, causing further economic contraction with disastrous impact on banks.[34] Between 1929 and 1933, 40% of all banks (9,490 out of 23,697 banks) failed.[35] Much of the Great Depression's economic damage was caused directly by bank runs.[36]

Herbert Hoover had already considered a bank holiday to prevent further bank runs, but rejected the idea because he was afraid to trip a panic. However, Roosevelt gave a radio address, held in the atmosphere of a Fireside Chat, in which he explained to the public in simple terms the causes of the banking crisis, what the government would do, and how the population could help. He closed all the banks in the country, and kept them all closed until new legislation could be passed.[37]

On March 9, 1933, Roosevelt sent to Congress the Emergency Banking Act, drafted in large part by Hoover's top advisors. The act was passed and signed into law the same day. It provided for a system of reopening sound banks under Treasury supervision, with federal loans available if needed. Three-quarters of the banks in the Federal Reserve System reopened within the next three days. Billions of dollars in hoarded currency and gold flowed back into them within a month, thus stabilizing the banking system.[38] By the end of 1933, 4,004 small local banks were permanently closed and merged into larger banks. Their deposits totalled $3.6 billion: depositors lost a total of $540 million and eventually received on average 85 cents on the dollar of their deposits—it is a common myth that they received nothing back.[39]

The Glass–Steagall Act limited commercial bank securities activities and affiliations between commercial banks and securities firms to regulate speculations. It also established the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), which insured deposits for up to $2,500, ending the risk of runs on banks.[40] This banking reform offered unprecedented stability as while throughout the 1920s more than five hundred banks failed per year, it was less than ten banks per year after 1933.[41]

Under the gold standard, the United States kept the dollar convertible to gold. The Federal Reserve would have had to execute an expansionary monetary policy to fight the deflation and to inject liquidity into the banking system to prevent it from crumbling—but lower interest rates would have led to a gold outflow.[42] Under the gold standards, price–specie flow mechanism countries that lost gold, but nevertheless wanted to maintain the gold standard, had to permit their money supply to decrease and the domestic price level to decline (deflation).[43] As long as the Federal Reserve had to defend the gold parity of the Dollar it had to sit idle while the banking system crumbled.[42]

In March and April in a series of laws and executive orders, the government suspended the gold standard. Roosevelt stopped the outflow of gold by forbidding the export of gold except under license from the Treasury. Anyone holding significant amounts of gold coinage was mandated to exchange it for the existing fixed price of U.S. dollars. The Treasury no longer paid out gold in exchange for dollars and gold would no longer be considered valid legal tender for debts in private and public contracts.[44]

The dollar was allowed to float freely on foreign exchange markets with no guaranteed price in gold. With the passage of the Gold Reserve Act in 1934, the nominal price of gold was changed from $20.67 per troy ounce to $35. These measures enabled the Federal Reserve to increase the amount of money in circulation to the level the economy needed. Markets immediately responded well to the suspension in the hope that the decline in prices would finally end.[44] In her essay "What ended the Great Depression?" (1992), Christina Romer argued that this policy raised industrial production by 25% until 1937 and by 50% until 1942.[45]

Before the Wall Street Crash of 1929, there was no regulation of securities at the federal level. Even firms whose securities were publicly traded published no regular reports or even worse rather misleading reports based on arbitrarily selected data. To avoid another Wall Street Crash, the Securities Act of 1933 was enacted. It required the disclosure of the balance sheet, profit and loss statement, and the names and compensations of corporate officers for firms whose securities were traded. Additionally, the reports had to be verified by independent auditors. In 1934, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission was established to regulate the stock market and prevent corporate abuses relating to corporate reporting and the sale of securities.[46]

In a measure that garnered substantial popular support for his New Deal, Roosevelt moved to put to rest one of the most divisive cultural issues of the 1920s. He signed the bill to legalize the manufacture and sale of alcohol, an interim measure pending the repeal of prohibition, for which a constitutional amendment of repeal (the 21st) was already in process. The repeal amendment was ratified later in 1933. States and cities gained additional new revenue and Roosevelt secured his popularity especially in the cities and ethnic areas by helping the beer start flowing.[47]

Relief was the immediate effort to help the one-third of the population that was hardest hit by the depression. Relief was also aimed at providing temporary help to suffering and unemployed Americans. Local and state budgets were sharply reduced because of falling tax revenue, but New Deal relief programs were used not just to hire the unemployed but also to build needed schools, municipal buildings, waterworks, sewers, streets, and parks according to local specifications. While the regular Army and Navy budgets were reduced, Roosevelt juggled relief funds to provide for their claimed needs. All of the CCC camps were directed by army officers, whose salaries came from the relief budget. The PWA built numerous warships, including two aircraft carriers; the money came from the PWA agency. PWA also built warplanes, while the WPA built military bases and airfields.[48]

To prime the pump and cut unemployment, the NIRA created the Public Works Administration (PWA), a major program of public works, which organized and provided funds for the building of useful works such as government buildings, airports, hospitals, schools, roads, bridges and dams.[49] From 1933 to 1935 PWA spent $3.3 billion with private companies to build 34,599 projects, many of them quite large.[50]

Under Roosevelt, many unemployed persons were put to work on a wide range of government financed public works projects, building bridges, airports, dams, post offices, hospitals and hundreds of thousands of miles of road. Through reforestation and flood control, they reclaimed millions of hectares of soil from erosion and devastation. As noted by one authority, Roosevelt's New Deal "was literally stamped on the American landscape".[51]

The rural U.S. was a high priority for Roosevelt and his energetic Secretary of Agriculture, Henry A. Wallace. Roosevelt believed that full economic recovery depended upon the recovery of agriculture and raising farm prices was a major tool, even though it meant higher food prices for the poor living in cities.

In 1933, the Roosevelt administration launched the Tennessee Valley Authority, a project involving dam construction planning on an unprecedented scale to curb flooding, generate electricity and modernize poor farms in the Tennessee Valley region of the Southern United States. Under the Farmers' Relief Act of 1933, the government paid compensation to farmers who reduced output, thereby raising prices. As a result of this legislation, the average income of farmers almost doubled by 1937.[49]

In the 1920s, farm production had increased dramatically thanks to mechanization, more potent insecticides and increased use of fertilizer. Due to an overproduction of agricultural products, farmers faced a severe and chronic agricultural depression throughout the 1920s. The Great Depression even worsened the agricultural crises and at the beginning of 1933 agricultural markets nearly faced collapse.[52] Farm prices were so low that in Montana wheat was rotting in the fields because it could not be profitably harvested. In Oregon, sheep were slaughtered and left to the buzzards because meat prices were not sufficient to warrant transportation to markets.[53]

Roosevelt was keenly interested in farm issues and believed that true prosperity would not return until farming was prosperous. Many different programs were directed at farmers. The first 100 days produced the Farm Security Act to raise farm incomes by raising the prices farmers received, which was achieved by reducing total farm output. The Agricultural Adjustment Act created the Agricultural Adjustment Administration (AAA) in May 1933. The act reflected the demands of leaders of major farm organizations (especially the Farm Bureau) and reflected debates among Roosevelt's farm advisers such as Secretary of Agriculture Henry A. Wallace, M.L. Wilson, Rexford Tugwell and George Peek.[54]

The AAA aimed to raise prices for commodities through artificial scarcity. The AAA used a system of domestic allotments, setting total output of corn, cotton, dairy products, hogs, rice, tobacco and wheat. The farmers themselves had a voice in the process of using government to benefit their incomes. The AAA paid land owners subsidies for leaving some of their land idle with funds provided by a new tax on food processing. To force up farm prices to the point of "parity," 10 million acres (40,000 km2) of growing cotton was plowed up, bountiful crops were left to rot and six million piglets were killed and discarded.[55]

The idea was to give farmers a "fair exchange value" for their products in relation to the general economy ("parity level").[56] Farm incomes and the income for the general population recovered fast since the beginning of 1933.[57][58] Food prices remained still well below the 1929 peak.[59] The AAA established an important and long-lasting federal role in the planning on the entire agricultural sector of the economy and was the first program on such a scale on behalf of the troubled agricultural economy. The original AAA did not provide for any sharecroppers or tenants or farm laborers who might become unemployed, but there were other New Deal programs especially for them.

A Gallup poll printed in the Washington Post revealed that a majority of the American public opposed the AAA.[60] In 1936, the Supreme Court declared the AAA to be unconstitutional, stating that "a statutory plan to regulate and control agricultural production, [is] a matter beyond the powers delegated to the federal government". The AAA was replaced by a similar program that did win Court approval. Instead of paying farmers for letting fields lie barren, this program subsidized them for planting soil-enriching crops such as alfalfa that would not be sold on the market. Federal regulation of agricultural production has been modified many times since then, but together with large subsidies is still in effect today.

The Farm Tenancy Act in 1937 was the last major New Deal legislation that concerned farming. In turn, it created the Farm Security Administration (FSA), which replaced the Resettlement Administration.

The Food Stamp Plan—a major new welfare program for urban poor—was established in 1939 to provide stamps to poor people who could use them to purchase food at retail outlets. The program ended during wartime prosperity in 1943, but was restored in 1961. It survived into the 21st century with little controversy because it was seen to benefit the urban poor, food producers, grocers and wholesalers as well as farmers, thus it gained support from both liberal and conservative Congressmen. In 2013, Tea Party activists in the House nonetheless tried to end the program, now known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, while the Senate fought to preserve it.[61][62]

Recovery was the effort in numerous programs to restore the economy to normal health. By most economic indicators, this was achieved by 1937—except for unemployment, which remained stubbornly high until World War II began. Recovery was designed to help the economy bounce back from depression. Economic historians led by Price Fishback have examined the impact of New Deal spending on improving health conditions in the 114 largest cities, 1929–1937. They estimated that every additional $153,000 in relief spending (in 1935 dollars, or $1.95 million in year 2000 dollars) was associated with a reduction of one infant death, one suicide and 2.4 deaths from infectious disease.[63][64]

From 1929 to 1933, the industrial economy suffered from a vicious cycle of deflation. Since 1931, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the voice of the nation's organized business, promoted an anti-deflationary scheme that would permit trade associations to cooperate in government-instigated cartels to stabilize prices within their industries. While existing antitrust laws clearly forbade such practices, organized business found a receptive ear in the Roosevelt Administration.[66]

Roosevelt's advisers believed that excessive competition and technical progress had led to overproduction and lowered wages and prices, which they believed lowered demand and employment (deflation). He argued that government economic planning was necessary to remedy this.[67] New Deal economists argued that cut-throat competition had hurt many businesses and that with prices having fallen 20% and more, "deflation" exacerbated the burden of debt and would delay recovery. They rejected a strong move in Congress to limit the workweek to 30 hours. Instead their remedy, designed in cooperation with big business, was the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA). It included stimulus funds for the WPA to spend and sought to raise prices, give more bargaining power for unions (so the workers could purchase more) and reduce harmful competition.

At the center of the NIRA was the National Recovery Administration (NRA), headed by former General Hugh S. Johnson, who had been a senior economic official in World War I. Johnson called on every business establishment in the nation to accept a stopgap "blanket code": a minimum wage of between 20 and 45 cents per hour, a maximum workweek of 35–45 hours and the abolition of child labor. Johnson and Roosevelt contended that the "blanket code" would raise consumer purchasing power and increase employment.[68] To mobilize political support for the NRA, Johnson launched the "NRA Blue Eagle" publicity campaign to boost what he called "industrial self-government". The NRA brought together leaders in each industry to design specific sets of codes for that industry—the most important provisions were anti-deflationary floors below which no company would lower prices or wages and agreements on maintaining employment and production. In a remarkably short time, the NRA announced agreements from almost every major industry in the nation. By March 1934, industrial production was 45% higher than in March 1933.[69]

NRA Administrator Hugh Johnson was showing signs of mental breakdown due to the extreme pressure and workload of running the National Recovery Administration.[70] After two meetings with Roosevelt and an abortive resignation attempt, Johnson resigned on September 24, 1934 and Roosevelt replaced the position of Administrator with a new National Industrial Recovery Board,[71][72] of which Donald Richberg was named Executive Director.

The New Deal had an important impact in the housing field. The New Deal followed and increased President Hoover's lead and seek measures. The New Deal sought to stimulate the private home building industry and increase the number of individuals who owned homes.[74] The New Deal implemented two new housing agencies; Home Owners' Loan Corporation (HOLC) and the Federal Housing Administration (FHA). HOLC set uniform national appraisal methods and simplified the mortgage process. The Federal Housing Administration (FHA) created national standards for home construction.[75]

Reform was based on the assumption that the depression was caused by the inherent instability of the market and that government intervention was necessary to rationalize and stabilize the economy and to balance the interests of farmers, business and labor. Reforms targeted the causes of the depression and sought to prevent a crisis like it from happening again. In other words, financially rebuilding the U.S. while ensuring not to repeat history.

In the spring of 1935, responding to the setbacks in the Court, a new skepticism in Congress and the growing popular clamor for more dramatic action, New Dealers passed important new initiatives. Historians refer to them as the "Second New Deal" and note that it was more liberal and more controversial than the "First New Deal" of 1933–1934.

Until 1935 there were just a dozen states that had old age insurance laws, but these programs were woefully underfunded and therefore almost worthless. Just one state (Wisconsin) had an insurance program. The United States was the only modern industrial country where people faced the Depression without any national system of social security. The work programs of the "First New Deal" such as CWA and FERA were designed for immediate relief, for a year or two.[79]

The most important program of 1935 and perhaps the New Deal as a whole was the Social Security Act. It established a permanent system of universal retirement pensions (Social Security), unemployment insurance and welfare benefits for the handicapped and needy children in families without a father present.[80] It established the framework for the U.S. welfare system. Roosevelt insisted that it should be funded by payroll taxes rather than from the general fund—he said: "We put those payroll contributions there so as to give the contributors a legal, moral, and political right to collect their pensions and unemployment benefits. With those taxes in there, no damn politician can ever scrap my social security program".[81]

Compared to the social security systems in western European countries, the Social Security Act of 1935 was rather conservative, but for the first time the federal government took responsibility for the economic security of the aged, the temporarily unemployed, dependent children and the handicapped.[82]

The National Labor Relations Act of 1935, also known as the Wagner Act, finally guaranteed workers the rights to collective bargaining through unions of their own choice. The Act also established the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to facilitate wage agreements and to suppress the repeated labor disturbances. The Wagner Act did not compel employers to reach agreement with their employees, but it opened possibilities for American labor.[83] The result was a tremendous growth of membership in the labor unions, especially in the mass-production sector, led by the older and larger American Federation of Labor and the new, more radical Congress of Industrial Organizations. Labor thus became a major component of the New Deal political coalition. However, the intense battle for members between the AFL and the CIO coalitions weakened labor's power.[84]

The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 set maximum hours (44 per week) and minimum wages (25 cents per hour) for most categories of workers. Child labour of children under the age of 16 was forbidden, children under 18 years were forbidden to work in hazardous employment. As a result, the wages of 300,000 workers, especially in the South, were increased and the hours of 1.3 million were reduced.[85] It was the last major New Deal legislation and it passed with support of Northern industrialists who wanted to stop the drain of jobs to the low-wage South.[86]

Roosevelt nationalized unemployment relief through the Works Progress Administration (WPA), headed by close friend Harry Hopkins. Roosevelt had insisted that the projects had to be costly in terms of labor, long-term beneficial and the WPA was forbidden to compete with private enterprises—therefore the workers had to be paid smaller wages.[87] The Works Progress Administration (WPA) was created to return the unemployed to the work force.[88] The WPA financed a variety of projects such as hospitals, schools and roads,[49] and employed more than 8.5 million workers who built 650,000 miles of highways and roads, 125,000 public buildings as well as bridges, reservoirs, irrigation systems, parks, playgrounds and so on.[89]

The Federal Writers' Project operated in every state, where it created a famous guide book—it also catalogued local archives and hired many writers, including Margaret Walker, Zora Neale Hurston and Anzia Yezierska, to document folklore. Other writers interviewed elderly ex-slaves and recorded their stories. Under the Federal Theater Project, headed by charismatic Hallie Flanagan, actresses and actors, technicians, writers and directors put on stage productions. The tickets were inexpensive or sometimes free, making theater available to audiences unaccustomed to attending plays.[92]

One Federal Art Project paid 162 trained woman artists on relief to paint murals or create statues for newly built post offices and courthouses. Many of these works of art can still be seen in public buildings around the country, along with murals sponsored by the Treasury Relief Art Project of the Treasury Department.[94][95] During its existence, the Federal Theatre Project provided jobs for circus people, musicians, actors, artists and playwrights, together with increasing public appreciation of the arts.[49]

In 1935, Roosevelt called for a tax program called the Wealth Tax Act (Revenue Act of 1935) to redistribute wealth. The bill imposed an income tax of 79% on incomes over $5 million. Since that was an extraordinary high income in the 1930s, the highest tax rate actually covered just one individual—John D. Rockefeller. The bill was expected to raise only about $250 million in additional funds, so revenue was not the primary goal. Morgenthau called it "more or less a campaign document". In a private conversation with Raymond Moley, Roosevelt admitted that the purpose of the bill was "stealing Huey Long's thunder" by making Long's supporters of his own. At the same time, it raised the bitterness of the rich who called Roosevelt "a traitor to his class" and the wealth tax act a "soak the rich tax".[96]

A tax called the undistributed profits tax was enacted in 1936. This time the primary purpose was revenue, since Congress had enacted the Adjusted Compensation Payment Act, calling for payments of $2 billion to World War I veterans. The bill established the persisting principle that retained corporate earnings could be taxed. Paid dividends were tax deductible by corporations. Its proponents intended the bill to replace all other corporation taxes—believing this would stimulate corporations to distribute earnings and thus put more cash and spending power in the hands of individuals.[97] In the end, Congress watered down the bill, setting the tax rates at 7 to 27% and largely exempting small enterprises.[98] Facing widespread and fierce criticism,[99] the tax deduction of paid dividends was repealed in 1938.[97]

When the Supreme Court started abolishing New Deal programs as unconstitutional, Roosevelt launched a surprise counter-attack in early 1937. He proposed adding five new justices, but conservative Democrats revolted, led by the Vice President. The Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937 failed—it never reached a vote. Momentum in Congress and public opinion shifted to the right and very little new legislation was passed expanding the New Deal. However, retirements allowed Roosevelt to put supporters on the Court and it stopped killing New Deal programs.[100]

The Roosevelt administration was under assault during Roosevelt's second term, which presided over a new dip in the Great Depression in the fall of 1937 that continued through most of 1938. Production and profits declined sharply. Unemployment jumped from 14.3% in May 1937 to 19.0% in June 1938. The downturn was perhaps due to nothing more than the familiar rhythms of the business cycle, but until 1937 Roosevelt had claimed responsibility for the excellent economic performance. That backfired in the recession and the heated political atmosphere of 1937.[101]

Keynes did not think that The New Deal under Roosevelt ended the Great Depression: "It is, it seems, politically impossible for a capitalistic democracy to organize expenditure on the scale necessary to make the grand experiments which would prove my case — except in war conditions."[102]

The U.S. reached full employment after entering World War II in December 1941. Under the special circumstances of war mobilization, massive war spending doubled the gross national product (GNP).[103]Military Keynesianism brought full employment and federal contracts were cost-plus. Instead of competitive bidding to get lower prices, the government gave out contracts that promised to pay all the expenses plus a modest profit. Factories hired everyone they could find regardless of their lack of skills—they simplified work tasks and trained the workers, with the federal government paying all the costs. Millions of farmers left marginal operations, students quit school and housewives joined the labor force.[104]

The emphasis was for war supplies as soon as possible, regardless of cost and inefficiencies. Industry quickly absorbed the slack in the labor force and the tables turned such that employers needed to actively and aggressively recruit workers. As the military grew, new labor sources were needed to replace the 12 million men serving in the military. Propaganda campaigns started pleading for people to work in the war factories. The barriers for married women, the old, the unskilled—and (in the North and West) the barriers for racial minorities—were lowered.[105]

In 1929, federal expenditures accounted for only 3% of GNP. Between 1933 and 1939, federal expenditures tripled, but the national debt as a percent of GNP showed little change. Spending on the war effort quickly eclipsed spending on New Deal programs. In 1944, government spending on the war effort exceeded 40% of GNP. The U.S. economy experienced dramatic growth during the Second World War mostly due to the deemphasis of free enterprise in favor of the imposition of strict controls on prices and wages. These controls shared broad support among labor and business, resulting in cooperation between the two groups and the U.S. government. This cooperation resulted in the government subsidizing business and labor through both direct and indirect methods.[106]

Conservative domination of Congress during the war meant that all welfare projects and reforms had to have their approval, which was given when business supported the project. For example, the Coal Mines Inspection and Investigation Act of 1941 significantly reduced fatality rates in the coal-mining industry, saving workers' lives and company money.[107] In terms of welfare, the New Dealers wanted benefits for everyone according to need. However, conservatives proposed benefits based on national service—especially tied to military service or working in war industries—and their approach won out.

The Community Facilities Act of 1940 (the Lanham Act) provided federal funds to defense-impacted communities where the population had soared and local facilities were overwhelmed. It provided money for the building of housing for war workers as well as recreational facilities, water and sanitation plants, hospitals, day care centers and schools.[108][109]

The Servicemen's Dependents Allowance Act of 1942 provided family allowances for dependents of enlisted men. Emergency grants to states were authorized in 1942 for programs for day care for children of working mothers. In 1944, pensions were authorized for all physically or mentally helpless children of deceased veterans regardless of the age of the child at the date the claim was filed or at the time of the veteran's death, provided the child was disabled at the age of sixteen and that the disability continued to the date of the claim. The Public Health Service Act, which was passed that same year, expanded federal-state public health programs and increased the annual amount for grants for public health services.[110]

The Emergency Maternity and Infant Care Program (EMIC), introduced in March 1943 by the Children's Bureau, provided free maternity care and medical treatment during an infant's first year for the wives and children of military personnel in the four lowest enlisted pay grades. One out of seven births was covered during its operation. EMIC paid $127 million to state health departments to cover the care of 1.2 million new mothers and their babies. The average cost of EMIC maternity cases completed was $92.49 for medical and hospital care. A striking effect was the sudden rapid decline in home births as most mothers now had paid hospital maternity care.[111][112][113][114]

Under the 1943 Disabled Veterans Rehabilitation Act, vocational rehabilitation services were offered to wounded World War II veterans and some 621,000 veterans would go on to receive assistance under this program.[115] The G.I. Bill (Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944) was a landmark piece of legislation, providing 16 million returning veterans with benefits such as housing, educational and unemployment assistance and played a major role in the postwar expansion of the American middle class.[116]

In response to the March on Washington Movement led by A. Philip Randolph, Roosevelt promulgated Executive Order 8802 in June 1941, which established the President's Committee on Fair Employment Practices (FEPC) "to receive and investigate complaints of discrimination" so that "there shall be no discrimination in the employment of workers in defense industries or government because of race, creed, color, or national origin".[117]

A major result of the full employment at high wages was a sharp, long lasting decrease in the level of income inequality (Great Compression). The gap between rich and poor narrowed dramatically in the area of nutrition because food rationing and price controls provided a reasonably priced diet to everyone. White collar workers did not typically receive overtime and therefore the gap between white collar and blue collar income narrowed. Large families that had been poor during the 1930s had four or more wage earners and these families shot to the top one-third income bracket. Overtime provided large paychecks in war industries[118] and average living standards rose steadily, with real wages rising by 44% in the four years of war, while the percentage of families with an annual income of less than $2,000 fell from 75% to 25% of the population.[119]

In 1941, 40% of all American families lived on less than the $1,500 per year defined as necessary by the Works Progress Administration for a modest standard of living. The median income stood at $2,000 a year, while 8 million workers earned below the legal minimum. From 1939 to 1944, wages and salaries more than doubled, with overtime pay and the expansion of jobs leading to a 70% rise in average weekly earnings during the course of the war. Membership in organized labor increased by 50% between 1941 and 1945 and because the War Labor Board sought labor-management peace, new workers were encouraged to participate in the existing labor organizations, thereby receiving all the benefits of union membership such as improved working conditions, better fringe benefits and higher wages. As noted by William H. Chafe, "with full employment, higher wages and social welfare benefits provided under government regulations, American workers experienced a level of well-being that, for many, had never occurred before".

As a result of the new prosperity, consumer expenditures rose by nearly 50%, from $61.7 billion at the start of the war to $98.5 billion by 1944. Individual savings accounts climbed almost sevenfold during the course of the war. The share of total income held by the top 5% of wage earners fell from 22% to 17% while the bottom 40% increased their share of the economic pie. In addition, during the course of the war the proportion of the American population earning less than $3,000 (in 1968 dollars) fell by half.[120]

The New Deal was the inspiration for President Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society in the 1960s: Johnson (on right) headed the Texas NYA and was elected to Congress in 1938

Analysts agree the New Deal produced a new political coalition that sustained the Democratic Party as the majority party in national politics into the 1960s.[121] A 2013 study found that "an average increase in New Deal relief and public works spending resulted in a 5.4 percentage point increase in the 1936 Democratic voting share and a smaller amount in 1940. The estimated persistence of this shift suggests that New Deal spending increased long-term Democratic support by 2 to 2.5 percentage points. Thus, it appears that Roosevelt's early, decisive actions created long-lasting positive benefits for the Democratic party... The New Deal did play an important role in consolidating Democratic gains for at least two decades".[122]

However, there is disagreement about whether it marked a permanent change in values. Cowie and Salvatore in 2008 argued that it was a response to Depression and did not mark a commitment to a welfare state because the U.S. has always been too individualistic.[123] MacLean rejected the idea of a definitive political culture. She says they overemphasized individualism and ignored the enormous power that big capital wields, the Constitutional restraints on radicalism and the role of racism, antifeminism and homophobia. She warns that accepting Cowie and Salvatore's argument that conservatism's ascendancy is inevitable would dismay and discourage activists on the left.[124] Klein responds that the New Deal did not die a natural death—it was killed off in the 1970s by a business coalition mobilized by such groups as the Business Roundtable, the Chamber of Commerce, trade organizations, conservative think tanks and decades of sustained legal and political attacks.[125]

Historians generally agree that during Roosevelt's 12 years in office there was a dramatic increase in the power of the federal government as a whole.[126][127] Roosevelt also established the presidency as the prominent center of authority within the federal government. Roosevelt created a large array of agencies protecting various groups of citizens—workers, farmers and others—who suffered from the crisis and thus enabled them to challenge the powers of the corporations. In this way, the Roosevelt administration generated a set of political ideas—known as New Deal liberalism—that remained a source of inspiration and controversy for decades. New Deal liberalism lay the foundation of a new consensus. Between 1940 and 1980, there was the liberal consensus about the prospects for the widespread distribution of prosperity within an expanding capitalist economy.[121] Especially Harry S. Truman's Fair Deal and in the 1960s Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society used the New Deal as inspiration for a dramatic expansion of liberal programs.

The New Deal's enduring appeal on voters fostered its acceptance by moderate and liberal Republicans.[128]

As the first Republican President elected after Roosevelt, Dwight D. Eisenhower (1953–1961) built on the New Deal in a manner that embodied his thoughts on efficiency and cost-effectiveness. He sanctioned a major expansion of Social Security by a self-financed program.[129] He supported such New Deal programs as the minimum wage and public housing—he greatly expanded federal aid to education and built the Interstate Highway system primarily as defense programs (rather than jobs program).[130] In a private letter, Eisenhower wrote:

Should any party attempt to abolish social security and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group of course, that believes you can do these things [...] Their number is negligible and they are stupid.[131]

In 1964, Barry Goldwater, an unreconstructed anti-New Dealer, was the Republican presidential candidate on a platform that attacked the New Deal. The Democrats under Lyndon B. Johnson won a massive landslide and Johnson's Great Society programs extended the New Deal. However, the supporters of Goldwater formed the New Right which helped to bring Ronald Reagan into the White House in the 1980 presidential election. Once an ardent supporter of the New Deal, Reagan turned against it, now viewing government as the problem rather than solution and, as president, moved the nation away from the New Deal model of government activism, shifting greater emphasis to the private sector.[132]

A 2017 review study of the existing literature in the Journal of Economic Literature summarized the findings of the research as follows:[133]

The studies find that public works and relief spending had state income multipliers of around one, increased consumption activity, attracted internal migration, reduced crime rates, and lowered several types of mortality. The farm programs typically aided large farm owners but eliminated opportunities for share croppers, tenants, and farm workers. The Home Owners' Loan Corporation's purchases and refinancing of troubled mortgages staved off drops in housing prices and home ownership rates at relatively low ex post cost to taxpayers. The Reconstruction Finance Corporation's loans to banks and railroads appear to have had little positive impact, although the banks were aided when the RFC took ownership stakes.

Historians debating the New Deal have generally divided between liberals who support it, conservatives who oppose it and some New Left historians who complain it was too favorable to capitalism and did too little for minorities. There is consensus on only a few points, with most commentators favorable toward the CCC and hostile toward the NRA.

[B]elieved that the prosperity and apparent class harmony of the post-World War II era reflected a return to the true Americanism rooted in liberal capitalism and the pursuit of individual opportunity that had made fundamental conflicts over resources a thing of the past. They argued that the New Deal was a conservative movement that built a welfare state, guided by experts, that saved rather than transformed liberal capitalism.[134]

Liberal historians argue that Roosevelt restored hope and self-respect to tens of millions of desperate people, built labor unions, upgraded the national infrastructure and saved capitalism in his first term when he could have destroyed it and easily nationalized the banks and the railroads.[135] Historians generally agree that apart from building up labor unions, the New Deal did not substantially alter the distribution of power within American capitalism. "The New Deal brought about limited change in the nation's power structure".[136] The New Deal preserved democracy in the United States in a historic period of uncertainty and crises when in many other countries democracy failed.[137]

The New Deal vastly increased the federal debt (Billington and Ridge)[138] while liberal Keynesians criticize that the federal deficit between 1933 and 1939 averaged only 3.7% which was not enough to offset the reduction in private sector spending during the Great Depression[139]

The nation came through its greatest depression without undermining the capitalist system (Billington and Ridge)[138]

Making the capitalist system more beneficial by enacting banking and stock market regulations to avoid abuses and providing greater financial security through, for example the introduction of Social Security or the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (David M. Kennedy)[142]

Created a better balance among labor, agriculture and industry (Billington and Ridge)[138]

Produced a more equal distribution of wealth (Billington and Ridge)[138]

Julian Zelizer (2000) has argued that fiscal conservatism was a key component of the New Deal.[143] A fiscally conservative approach was supported by Wall Street and local investors and most of the business community—mainstream academic economists believed in it as apparently did the majority of the public. Conservative southern Democrats, who favored balanced budgets and opposed new taxes, controlled Congress and its major committees. Even liberal Democrats at the time regarded balanced budgets as essential to economic stability in the long run, although they were more willing to accept short-term deficits. As Zelizer notes, public opinion polls consistently showed public opposition to deficits and debt. Throughout his terms, Roosevelt recruited fiscal conservatives to serve in his administration, most notably Lewis Douglas the Director of Budget in 1933–1934; and Henry Morgenthau Jr., Secretary of the Treasury from 1934 to 1945. They defined policy in terms of budgetary cost and tax burdens rather than needs, rights, obligations, or political benefits. Personally, Roosevelt embraced their fiscal conservatism, but politically he realized that fiscal conservatism enjoyed a strong wide base of support among voters, leading Democrats and businessmen. On the other hand, there was enormous pressure to act and spending money on high visibility work programs with millions of paychecks a week.[144]

Douglas proved too inflexible and he quit in 1934. Morgenthau made it his highest priority to stay close to Roosevelt, no matter what. Douglas's position, like many of the Old Right, was grounded in a basic distrust of politicians and the deeply ingrained fear that government spending always involved a degree of patronage and corruption that offended his Progressive sense of efficiency. The Economy Act of 1933, passed early in the Hundred Days, was Douglas's great achievement. It reduced federal expenditures by $500 million, to be achieved by reducing veterans' payments and federal salaries. Douglas cut government spending through executive orders that cut the military budget by $125 million, $75 million from the Post Office, $12 million from Commerce, $75 million from government salaries and $100 million from staff layoffs. As Freidel concludes: "The economy program was not a minor aberration of the spring of 1933, or a hypocritical concession to delighted conservatives. Rather it was an integral part of Roosevelt's overall New Deal".[145]

Revenues were so low that borrowing was necessary (only the richest 3% paid any income tax between 1926 and 1940).[146] Douglas therefore hated the relief programs, which he said reduced business confidence, threatened the government's future credit and had the "destructive psychological effects of making mendicants of self-respecting American citizens".[147] Roosevelt was pulled toward greater spending by Hopkins and Ickes and as the 1936 election approached he decided to gain votes by attacking big business.

Morgenthau shifted with Roosevelt, but at all times tried to inject fiscal responsibility—he deeply believed in balanced budgets, stable currency, reduction of the national debt and the need for more private investment. The Wagner Act met Morgenthau's requirement because it strengthened the party's political base and involved no new spending. In contrast to Douglas, Morgenthau accepted Roosevelt's double budget as legitimate—that is a balanced regular budget and an "emergency" budget for agencies, like the WPA, PWA and CCC, that would be temporary until full recovery was at hand. He fought against the veterans' bonus until Congress finally overrode Roosevelt's veto and gave out $2.2 billion in 1936. His biggest success was the new Social Security program as he managed to reverse the proposals to fund it from general revenue and insisted it be funded by new taxes on employees. It was Morgenthau who insisted on excluding farm workers and domestic servants from Social Security because workers outside industry would not be paying their way.[148]

While many Americans suffered economically during the Great Depression, African Americans also had to deal with social ills, such as racism, discrimination and segregation. Black workers were especially vulnerable to the economic downturn since most of them worked the most marginal jobs such as unskilled or service-oriented work, therefore they were the first to be discharged and additionally many employers preferred white workers. When jobs were scarce some employers even dismissed black workers to create jobs for white citizens. In the end there were three times more African American workers on public assistance or relief than white workers.[149]

Roosevelt appointed an unprecedented number of African Americans to second-level positions in his administration—these appointees were collectively called the Black Cabinet. The WPA, NYA and CCC relief programs allocated 10% of their budgets to blacks (who comprised about 10% of the total population, and 20% of the poor). They operated separate all-black units with the same pay and conditions as white units.[150] Some leading white New Dealers, especially Eleanor Roosevelt, Harold Ickes and Aubrey Williams, worked to ensure blacks received at least 10% of welfare assistance payments.[150] However, these benefits were small in comparison to the economic and political advantages that whites received. Most unions excluded blacks from joining and enforcement of anti-discrimination laws in the South was virtually impossible, especially since most blacks worked in hospitality and agricultural sectors.[151]

The New Deal programs put millions of Americans immediately back to work or at least helped them to survive.[152] The programs were not specifically targeted to alleviate the much higher unemployment rate of blacks.[153] Some aspects of the programs were even unfavorable to blacks. The Agricultural Adjustment Acts for example helped farmers which were predominantly white, but reduced the need of farmers to hire tenant farmers or sharecroppers which were predominantly black. While the AAA stipulated that a farmer had to share the payments with those who worked the land this policy was never enforced.[154] The Farm Service Agency (FSA), a government relief agency for tenant farmers, created in 1937, made efforts to empower African Americans by appointing them to agency committees in the South. Senator James F. Byrnes of South Carolina raised opposition to the appointments because he stood for white farmers who were threatened by an agency that could organize and empower tenant farmers. Initially, the FSA stood behind their appointments, but after feeling national pressure FSA was forced to release the African Americans of their positions. The goals of the FSA were notoriously liberal and not cohesive with the southern voting elite. Some New Deal measures inadvertently discriminated against harmed blacks. Thousands of blacks were thrown out of work and replaced by whites on jobs where they were paid less than the NRA's wage minimums because some white employers considered the NRA's minimum wage "too much money for Negroes". By August 1933, blacks called the NRA the "Negro Removal Act".[155] An NRA study found that the NIRA put 500,000 African Americans out of work.[156]

However, since blacks felt the sting of the depression's wrath even more severely than whites they welcomed any help. Until 1936 almost all African Americans (and many whites) shifted from the "Party of Lincoln" to the Democratic Party.[153] This was a sharp realignment from 1932, when most African Americans voted the Republican ticket. New Deal policies helped establish a political alliance between blacks and the Democratic Party that survives into the 21st century.[157]

There was no attempt whatsoever to end segregation, or to increase black rights in the South, and a number of leaders that promoted the New Deal were racist and anti semites.[158]

The wartime Fair Employment Practices Commission (FEPC) executive orders that forbade job discrimination against African Americans, women and ethnic groups was a major breakthrough that brought better jobs and pay to millions of minority Americans. Historians usually treat FEPC as part of the war effort and not part of the New Deal itself.

The New Deal was racially segregated as blacks and whites rarely worked alongside each other in New Deal programs. The largest relief program by far was the WPA—it operated segregated units, as did its youth affiliate the NYA.[159] Blacks were hired by the WPA as supervisors in the North, but of 10,000 WPA supervisors in the South only 11 were black.[160] Historian Anthony Badger argues that "New Deal programs in the South routinely discriminated against blacks and perpetuated segregation".[161] In its first few weeks of operation, CCC camps in the North were integrated. By July 1935, practically all the camps in the United States were segregated, and blacks were strictly limited in the supervisory roles they were assigned.[162] Kinker and Smith argue that "even the most prominent racial liberals in the New Deal did not dare to criticize Jim Crow".

Secretary of the Interior Harold Ickes was one of the Roosevelt Administration's most prominent supporters of blacks and former president of the Chicago chapter of the NAACP. In 1937, when Senator Josiah Bailey Democrat of North Carolina accused him of trying to break down segregation laws Ickes wrote him to deny that:

I think it is up to the states to work out their social problems if possible, and while I have always been interested in seeing that the Negro has a square deal, I have never dissipated my strength against the particular stone wall of segregation. I believe that wall will crumble when the Negro has brought himself to a high educational and economic status…. Moreover, while there are no segregation laws in the North, there is segregation in fact and we might as well recognize this.[163][164][165]

The New Deal's record came under attack by New Left historians in the 1960s for its pusillanimity in not attacking capitalism more vigorously, nor helping blacks achieve equality. The critics emphasize the absence of a philosophy of reform to explain the failure of New Dealers to attack fundamental social problems. They demonstrate the New Deal's commitment to save capitalism and its refusal to strip away private property. They detect a remoteness from the people and indifference to participatory democracy and call instead for more emphasis on conflict and exploitation.[166][167]

At first, the New Deal created programs primarily for men as it was assumed that the husband was the "breadwinner" (the provider) and if they had jobs the whole family would benefit. It was the social norm for women to give up jobs when they married—in many states, there were laws that prevented both husband and wife holding regular jobs with the government. So too in the relief world, it was rare for both husband and wife to have a relief job on FERA or the WPA.[168] This prevailing social norm of the breadwinner failed to take into account the numerous households headed by women, but it soon became clear that the government needed to help women as well.[169]

Many women were employed on FERA projects run by the states with federal funds. The first New Deal program to directly assist women was the Works Progress Administration (WPA), begun in 1935. It hired single women, widows, or women with disabled or absent husbands. The WPA employed about 500,000 women and they were assigned mostly to unskilled jobs. 295,000 worked on sewing projects that made 300 million items of clothing and bedding to be given away to families on relief and to hospitals and orphanages. Women also were hired for the WPA's school lunch program.[170][171][172] Both men and women were hired for the small but highly publicized arts programs (such as music, theater, and writing).

The Social Security program was designed to help retired workers and widows but did not include domestic workers, farmers or farm laborers, the jobs most often held by blacks. However, Social Security was not a relief program and it was not designed for short-term needs, as very few people received benefits before 1942.

The New Deal expanded the role of the federal government, particularly to help the poor, the unemployed, youth, the elderly and stranded rural communities. The Hoover administration started the system of funding state relief programs, whereby the states hired people on relief. With the CCC in 1933 and the WPA in 1935, the federal government now became involved in directly hiring people on relief in granting direct relief or benefits. Total federal, state and local spending on relief rose from 3.9% of GNP in 1929 to 6.4% in 1932 and 9.7% in 1934—the return of prosperity in 1944 lowered the rate to 4.1%. In 1935–1940, welfare spending accounted for 49% of the federal, state and local government budgets.[173] In his memoirs, Milton Friedman said that the New Deal relief programs were an appropriate response. He and his wife were not on relief, but they were employed by the WPA as statisticians.[174] Friedman said that programs like the CCC and WPA were justified as temporary responses to an emergency. Friedman said that Roosevelt deserved considerable credit for relieving immediate distress and restoring confidence.[175]

In a survey of economic historians conducted by Robert Whaples, Professor of Economics at Wake Forest University, anonymous questionnaires were sent to members of the Economic History Association. Members were asked to disagree, agree, or agree with provisos with the statement that read: "Taken as a whole, government policies of the New Deal served to lengthen and deepen the Great Depression". While only 6% of economic historians who worked in the history department of their universities agreed with the statement, 27% of those that work in the economics department agreed. Almost an identical percent of the two groups (21% and 22%) agreed with the statement "with provisos" (a conditional stipulation) while 74% of those who worked in the history department and 51% in the economic department disagreed with the statement outright.[176]

There are different assumptions as well. According to Richard L. Jensen, cyclical unemployment was a grave matter primarily until 1935. Between 1935 and 1941, structural unemployment became the bigger problem. Especially the unions successes in demanding higher wages pushed management into introducing new efficiency-oriented hiring standards. It ended inefficient labor such as child labor, casual unskilled work for subminimum wages and sweatshop conditions. In the long term, the shift to efficiency wages led to high productivity, high wages and a high standard of living, but it necessitated a well-educated, well-trained, hard-working labor force. It was not before war time brought full employment that the supply of unskilled labor (that caused structural unemployment) downsized.[180]

At the beginning of the Great Depression, many economists traditionally argued against deficit spending. The fear was that government spending would "crowd out" private investment and would thus not have any effect on the economy, a proposition known as the Treasury view, but Keynesian economics rejected that view. They argued that by spending vastly more money—using fiscal policy—the government could provide the needed stimulus through the multiplier effect. Without that stimulus, business simply would not hire more people, especially the low skilled and supposedly "untrainable" men who had been unemployed for years and lost any job skill they once had. Keynes visited the White House in 1934 to urge President Roosevelt to increase deficit spending. Roosevelt afterwards complained that "he left a whole rigmarole of figures – he must be a mathematician rather than a political economist".[181]

The New Deal tried public works, farm subsidies and other devices to reduce unemployment, but Roosevelt never completely gave up trying to balance the budget. Between 1933 and 1941, the average federal budget deficit was 3% per year.[182] Roosevelt did not fully utilize[clarification needed] deficit spending. The effects of federal public works spending were largely offset by Herbert Hoover's large tax increase in 1932, whose full effects for the first time were felt in 1933 and it was undercut by spending cuts, especially the Economy Act. According to Keynesians like Paul Krugman, the New Deal therefore was not as successful in the short run as it was in the long run.[183]

Following the Keynesian consensus (that lasted until the 1970s), the traditional view was that federal deficit spending associated with the war brought full-employment output while monetary policy was just aiding the process. In this view, the New Deal did not end the Great Depression, but halted the economic collapse and ameliorated the worst of the crises.[184]

More influential among economists has been the monetarist interpretation by Milton Friedman as put forth in A Monetary History of the United States,[citation needed] which includes a full-scale monetary history of what he calls the "Great Contraction."[185] Friedman concentrated on the failures before 1933 and points out that between 1929 and 1932 the Federal Reserve allowed the money supply to fall by a third which is seen as the major cause that turned a normal recession into a Great Depression. Friedman especially criticized the decisions of Hoover and the Federal Reserve not to save banks going bankrupt. Friedman's arguments got an endorsement from a surprising source when Fed GovernorBen Bernanke made this statement:

Let me end my talk by abusing slightly my status as an official representative of the Federal Reserve. I would like to say to Milton and Anna: Regarding the Great Depression, you're right. We did it. We're very sorry. But thanks to you, we won't do it again.[186][187]
— Ben S. Bernanke

Monetarists state that the banking and monetary reforms were a necessary and sufficient response to the crises. They reject the approach of Keynesian deficit spending.

You have to distinguish between two classes of New Deal policies. One class of New Deal policies was reform: wage and price control, the Blue Eagle, the national industrial recovery movement. I did not support those. The other part of the new deal policy was relief and recovery ... providing relief for the unemployed, providing jobs for the unemployed, and motivating the economy to expand ... an expansive monetary policy. Those parts of the New Deal I did support.[188]

Ben Bernanke and Martin Parkinson declared in "Unemployment, Inflation, and Wages in the American Depression" (1989) that "the New Deal is better characterized as having cleared the way for a natural recovery (for example, by ending deflation and rehabilitating the financial system) rather than as being the engine of recovery itself".[189][190]

Challenging the traditional view, monetarists and New Keynesians like J. Bradford DeLong, Lawrence Summers and Christina Romer argued that recovery was essentially complete prior to 1942 and that monetary policy was the crucial source of pre-1942 recovery.[191] The extraordinary growth in money supply beginning in 1933 lowered real interest rates and stimulated investment spending. According to Bernanke, there was also a debt-deflation effect of the depression which was clearly offset by a reflation through the growth in money supply.[189] However, before 1992 scholars did not realize that the New Deal provided for a huge aggregate demand stimulus through a de facto easing of monetary policy. While Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz argued in A Monetary History of the United States (1963) that the Federal Reserve System had made no attempt to increase the quantity in high-powered money and thus failed to foster recovery, they somehow did not investigate the impact of the monetary policy of the New Deal. In 1992, Christina Romer explained in "What Ended the Great Depression?" that the rapid growth in money supply beginning in 1933 can be traced back to a large unsterilized gold inflow to the U.S. which was partly due to political instability in Europe, but to a larger degree to the revaluation of gold through the Gold Reserve Act. The Roosevelt administration had chosen not to sterilize the gold inflow precisely because they hoped that the growth of money supply would stimulate the economy.[189]

Replying to DeLong et al. in the Journal of Economic History, J. R. Vernon argues that deficit spending leading up to and during World War II still played a large part in the overall recovery, according to his study "half or more of the recovery occurred during 1941 and 1942".[192]

According to Peter Temin, Barry Wigmore, Gauti B. Eggertsson and Christina Romer, the biggest primary impact of the New Deal on the economy and the key to recovery and to end the Great Depression was brought about by a successful management of public expectations. The thesis is based on the observation that after years of deflation and a very severe recession important economic indicators turned positive just in March 1933 when Roosevelt took office. Consumer prices turned from deflation to a mild inflation, industrial production bottomed out in March 1933, investment doubled in 1933 with a turnaround in March 1933. There were no monetary forces to explain that turnaround. Money supply was still falling and short-term interest rates remained close to zero. Before March 1933, people expected a further deflation and recession so that even interest rates at zero did not stimulate investment. However, when Roosevelt announced major regime changes people[who?] began to expect inflation and an economic expansion. With those expectations, interest rates at zero began to stimulate investment just as they were expected to do. Roosevelt's fiscal and monetary policy regime change helped to make his policy objectives credible. The expectation of higher future income and higher future inflation stimulated demand and investments. The analysis suggests that the elimination of the policy dogmas of the gold standard, a balanced budget in times of crises and small government led endogenously to a large shift in expectation that accounts for about 70–80 percent of the recovery of output and prices from 1933 to 1937. If the regime change had not happened and the Hoover policy had continued, the economy would have continued its free-fall in 1933 and output would have been 30 percent lower in 1937 than in 1933.[193][194][195]

Followers of the real business-cycle theory believe that the New Deal caused the depression to persist longer than it would otherwise have. Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian say Roosevelt's policies prolonged the depression by seven years.[196] According to their study, the "New Deal labor and industrial policies did not lift the economy out of the Depression", but that the "New Deal policies are an important contributing factor to the persistence of the Great Depression". They claim that the New Deal "cartelization policies are a key factor behind the weak recovery". They say that the "abandonment of these policies coincided with the strong economic recovery of the 1940s".[197] The study by Cole and Ohanian is based on a real business-cycle theory model. The underlying assumptions of this theory are subject to numerous criticisms and the theory is unable to posit any convincing explanations for the initial causes of the Great Depression.[198] Laurence Seidman noted that according to the assumptions of Cole and Ohanian, the labor market clears instantaneously, which leads to the incredible conclusion that the surge in unemployment between 1929 and 1932 (before the New Deal) was in their opinion both optimal and solely based on voluntary unemployment.[199] Additionally, Cole and Ohanian's argument does not count workers employed through New Deal programs. Such programs built or renovated 2,500 hospitals, 45,000 schools, 13,000 parks and playgrounds, 7,800 bridges, 700,000 miles (1,100,000 km) of roads, 1,000 airfields and employed 50,000 teachers through programs that rebuilt the country's entire rural school system.[200][201]

The economic reforms were mainly intended to rescue the capitalist system by providing a more rational framework in which it could operate. The banking system was made less vulnerable. The regulation of the stock market and the prevention of some corporate abuses relating to the sale of securities and corporate reporting addressed the worst excesses. Roosevelt allowed trade unions to take their place in labor relations and created the triangular partnership between employers, employees and government.[85]

While it is essentially consensus among historians and academics that the New Deal brought about a large increase in the power of the federal government, there has been some scholarly debate concerning the results of this federal expansion. Historians like Arthur M. Schlesinger and James T. Patterson have argued that the augmentation of the federal government exacerbated tensions between the federal and state governments. However, contemporaries such as Ira Katznelson have suggested that due to certain conditions on the allocation of federal funds, namely that the individual states get to control them, the federal government managed to avoid any tension with states over their rights. This is a prominent debate concerning the historiography of federalism in the United States and—as Schlesinger and Patterson have observed—the New Deal marked an era when the federal-
state power balance shifted further in favor of the federal government, which heightened tensions between the two levels of government in the United States.

Ira Katznelson has argued that although the federal government expanded its power and began providing welfare benefits on a scale previously unknown in the United States, it often allowed individual states to control the allocation of the funds provided for such welfare. This meant that the states controlled who had access to these funds, which in turn meant many Southern states were able to racially segregate—or in some cases, like a number of counties in Georgia, completely exclude African-Americans—the allocation of federal funds.[205] This enabled these states to continue to relatively exercise their rights and also to preserve the institutionalization of the racist order of their societies. While Katznelson has conceded that the expansion of the federal government had the potential to lead to federal-state tension, he has argued it was avoided as these states managed to retain some control. As Katznelson has observed, "furthermore, they [state governments in the South] had to manage the strain that potentially might be placed on local practices by investing authority in federal bureaucracies… To guard against this outcome, they key mechanism deployed was a separation of the source of funding from decisions about how to spend the new monies".[206]

However, Schlesinger has disputed Katznelson's claim and has argued that the increase in the power of the federal government was perceived to come at the cost of states' rights, thereby aggravating state governments, which exacerbated federal-state tensions. Schlesinger has utilized quotes from the time to highlight this point, Schlesinger has observed that "the actions of the New Deal, [Ogden L.] Mills said, "abolish the sovereignty of the States. They make of a government of limited powers one of unlimited authority over the lives of us all".[207]

Moreover, Schlesinger has argued that this federal-state tension was not a one-way street and that the federal government became just as aggravated with the state governments as they did with it. State governments were often guilty of inhibiting or delaying federal policies. Whether through intentional methods, like sabotage, or unintentional ones, like simple administrative overload—either way these problems aggravated the federal government and thus heightened federal-state tensions. As Schlesinger has also noted that "students of public administration have never taken sufficient account of the capacity of lower levels of government to sabotage or defy even a masterful President".[208]

James T. Patterson has reiterated this argument, though he observes that this increased tension can be accounted for not just from a political perspective, but from an economic one too. Patterson has argued that the tension between the federal and state governments at least partly also resulted from the economic strain under which the states had been put by the federal government's various policies and agencies. Some states were either simply unable to cope with the federal government's demand and thus refused to work with them, or admonished the economic restraints and actively decided to sabotage federal policies. This was demonstrated, Patterson has noted, with the handling of federal relief money by Ohio governor, Martin L. Davey. The case in Ohio became so detrimental to the federal government that Harry Hopkins, supervisor of the Federal Emergency Relief Administration, had to federalize Ohio relief.[209] Although this argument differs somewhat from Schlesinger's, the source of federal-state tension remained the growth of the federal government. As Patterson has asserted, "though the record of the FERA was remarkably good—almost revolutionary—in these respects it was inevitable, given the financial requirements imposed on deficit-ridden states, that friction would develop between governors and federal officials".[210]

In this dispute it can be inferred that Katznelson and Schlesinger and Patterson have only disagreed on their inference of the historical evidence. While both parties have agreed that the federal government expanded and even that states had a degree of control over the allocation of federal funds, they have disputed the consequences of these claims. Katznelson has asserted that it created mutual acquiescence between the levels of government, while Schlesinger and Patterson have suggested that it provoked contempt for the state governments on the part of the federal government and vice versa, thus exacerbating their relations. In short, irrespective of the interpretation this era marked an important time in the historiography of federalism and also nevertheless provided some narrative on the legacy of federal-state relations.

Worldwide, the Great Depression had the most profound impact in the German Reich and the United States. In both countries the pressure to reform and the perception of the economic crisis were strikingly similar. When Hitler came to power he was faced with exactly the same task that faced Roosevelt, overcoming mass unemployment and the global Depression. The political responses to the crises were essentially different: while American democracy remained strong, Germany replaced democracy with fascism, a Nazi dictatorship.[211]

The initial perception of the New Deal was mixed. On the one hand, the eyes of the world were upon the United States because many democrats in Europe and the United States saw in Roosevelt's reform program a positive counterweight to the seductive powers of the two great alternative systems, communism and fascism.[212] As the historian Isaiah Berlin wrote in 1955: "The only light in the darkness was the administration of Mr. Roosevelt and the New Deal in the United States".[213]

By contrast, enemies of the New Deal sometimes called it "fascist", but they meant very different things. Communists denounced the New Deal in 1933 and 1934 as fascist in the sense that it was under the control of big business. They dropped that line of thought when Stalin switched to the "Popular Front" plan of cooperation with liberals.[214]

In 1934, Roosevelt defended himself against those critics in a "fireside chat":

[Some] will try to give you new and strange names for what we are doing. Sometimes they will call it 'Fascism', sometimes 'Communism', sometimes 'Regimentation', sometimes 'Socialism'. But, in so doing, they are trying to make very complex and theoretical something that is really very simple and very practical.... Plausible self-seekers and theoretical die-hards will tell you of the loss of individual liberty. Answer this question out of the facts of your own life. Have you lost any of your rights or liberty or constitutional freedom of action and choice?[215]

After 1945, only few observers continued to see similarities and later on some scholars such as Kiran Klaus Patel, Heinrich August Winkler and John Garraty came to the conclusion that comparisons of the alternative systems do not have to end in an apology for Nazism since comparisons rely on the examination of both similarities and differences. Their preliminary studies on the origins of the fascist dictatorships and the American (reformed) democracy came to the conclusion that besides essential differences "the crises led to a limited degree of convergence" on the level of economic and social policy.[disputed – discuss] The most important cause was the growth of state interventionism since in the face of the catastrophic economic situation both societies no longer counted on the power of the market to heal itself.[216]

John Garraty wrote that the National Recovery Administration (NRA) was based on economic experiments in Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, without establishing a totalitarian dictatorship.[217] Contrary to that, historians such as Hawley have examined the origins of the NRA in detail, showing the main inspiration came from Senators Hugo Black and Robert F. Wagner and from American business leaders such as the Chamber of Commerce. The model for the NRA was Woodrow Wilson's War Industries Board, in which Johnson had been involved too.[218] Historians argue that direct comparisons between Fascism and New Deal are invalid since there is no distinctive form of fascist economic organization.[219]Gerald Feldman wrote that fascism has not contributed anything to economic thought and had no original vision of a new economic order replacing capitalism. His argument correlates with Mason's that economic factors alone are an insufficient approach to understand fascism and that decisions taken by fascists in power cannot be explained within a logical economic framework. In economic terms, both ideas were within the general tendency of the 1930s to intervene in the free market capitalist economy, at the price of its laissez-faire character, "to protect the capitalist structure endangered by endogenous crises tendencies and processes of impaired self-regulation".[219]

Stanley Payne, a historian of fascism, examined possible fascist influences in the United States by looking at the KKK and its offshoots and movements led by Father Coughlin and Huey Long. He concluded that "the various populist, nativist, and rightist movements in the United States during the 1920s and 1930s fell distinctly short of fascism".[220] According to Kevin Passmore, lecturer in History at Cardiff University, the failure of fascism in the United States was due to the social policies of the New Deal that channelled anti-establishment populism into the left rather than the extreme right.[221]

The New Deal was generally held in very high regard in scholarship and textbooks. That changed in the 1960s when New Left historians began a revisionist critique calling the New Deal a bandaid for a patient that needed radical surgery to reform capitalism, put private property in its place and lift up workers, women and minorities.[222] The New Left believed in participatory democracy and therefore rejected the autocratic machine politics typical of the big city Democratic organizations.[166]

In a 1968 essay, Barton J. Bernstein compiled a chronicle of missed opportunities and inadequate responses to problems. The New Deal may have saved capitalism from itself, Bernstein charged, but it had failed to help—and in many cases actually harmed—those groups most in need of assistance. In The New Deal (1967), Paul K. Conkin similarly chastised the government of the 1930s for its weak policies toward marginal farmers, for its failure to institute sufficiently progressive tax reform, and its excessive generosity toward select business interests. In 1966, Howard Zinn criticized the New Deal for working actively to actually preserve the worst evils of capitalism.

By the 1970s, liberal historians were responding with a defense of the New Deal based on numerous local and microscopic studies. Praise increasingly focused on Eleanor Roosevelt, seen as a more appropriate crusading reformer than her husband.[223] Since then, research on the New Deal has been less interested in the question of whether the New Deal was a "conservative", "liberal", or "revolutionary" phenomenon than in the question of constraints within which it was operating.

In a series of articles, political sociologist Theda Skocpol has emphasized the issue of "state capacity" as an often-crippling constraint. Ambitious reform ideas often failed, she argued, because of the absence of a government bureaucracy with significant strength and expertise to administer them. Other more recent works have stressed the political constraints that the New Deal encountered. Conservative skepticism about the efficacy of government was strong both in Congress and among many citizens. Thus some scholars have stressed that the New Deal was not just a product of its liberal backers, but also a product of the pressures of its conservative opponents.

During the New Deal the communists established a network of a dozen or so members working for the government. They were low level and had a minor influence on policies. Harold Ware led the largest group which worked in the Agriculture Adjustment Administration (AAA) until Secretary of Agriculture Wallace got rid of them all in a famous purge in 1935.[224] Ware died in 1935 and some individuals such as Alger Hiss moved to other government jobs.[225][226] Other communists worked for the National Labor Relations Board, the National Youth Administration, the Works Progress Administration, the Federal Theater Project, the Treasury and the Department of State.[227]

Since 1933, politicians and pundits have often called for a "new deal" regarding an object—that is, they demand a completely new, large-scale approach to a project. As Arthur A. Ekirch Jr. (1971) has shown, the New Deal stimulated utopianism in American political and social thought on a wide range of issues. In Canada, Conservative Prime Minister Richard B. Bennett in 1935 proposed a "new deal" of regulation, taxation and social insurance that was a copy of the American program, but Bennett's proposals were not enacted and he was defeated for reelection in October 1935. In accordance with the rise of the use of U.S. political phraseology in Britain, the Labour government of Tony Blair termed some of its employment programs "new deal", in contrast to the Conservative Party's promise of the "British Dream".

The federal government commissioned a series of public murals from the artists it employed: William Gropper's "Construction of a Dam" (1939) is characteristic of much of the art of the 1930s, with workers seen in heroic poses, laboring in unison to complete a great public project

Post Office murals and other public art, painted by artists in this time, can still be found at many locations around the U.S.[230] The New Deal particularly helped American novelists. For journalists and the novelists who wrote non-fiction, the agencies and programs that the New Deal provided, allowed these writers to describe about what they really saw around the country.[231]

Many writers chose to write about the New Deal and whether they were for or against it and if it was helping the country out. Some of these writers were Ruth McKenney, Edmund Wilson and Scott Fitzgerald.[232] Another subject that was very popular for novelists was the condition of labor. They ranged from subjects on social protest to strikes.[233]

Under the WPA, the Federal Theatre project flourished. Countless theatre productions around the country were staged. This allowed thousands of actors and directors to be employed, among them were Orson Welles, and John Huston.[230]

The FSA photography project is most responsible for creating the image of the Depression in the U.S. Many of the images appeared in popular magazines. The photographers were under instruction from Washington as to what overall impression the New Deal wanted to give out. Director Roy Stryker's agenda focused on his faith in social engineering, the poor conditions among cotton tenant farmers and the very poor conditions among migrant farm workers—above all he was committed to social reform through New Deal intervention in people's lives. Stryker demanded photographs that "related people to the land and vice versa" because these photographs reinforced the RA's position that poverty could be controlled by "changing land practices". Though Stryker did not dictate to his photographers how they should compose the shots, he did send them lists of desirable themes, such as "church", "court day", "barns".[234]

By contrast, there was also a smaller but influential stream of anti-New Deal art. Gutzon Borglum's sculptures on Mount Rushmore emphasized great men in history (his designs had the approval of Calvin Coolidge). Gertrude Stein and Ernest Hemingway disliked the New Deal and celebrated the autonomy of perfected written work as opposed to the New Deal idea of writing as performative labor. The Southern Agrarians celebrated a premodern regionalism and opposed the TVA as a modernizing, disruptive force. Cass Gilbert, a conservative who believed architecture should reflect historic traditions and the established social order, designed the new Supreme Court building (1935). Its classical lines and small size contrasted sharply with the gargantuan modernistic federal buildings going up in the Washington Mall that he detested.[236] Hollywood managed to synthesize liberal and conservative streams as in Busby Berkeley's Gold Digger musicals, where the storylines exalt individual autonomy while the spectacular musical numbers show abstract populations of interchangeable dancers securely contained within patterns beyond their control.[237]

The New Deal had many programs and new agencies, most of which were universally known by their initials. Most were abolished during World War II while others remain in operation today. They included the following:

National Youth Administration (NYA), 1935: program that focused on providing work and education for Americans between the ages of 16 and 25. Ended in 1943.

Homeowners Loan Corporation (HOLC): helped people keep their homes, the government bought properties from the bank allowing people to pay the government instead of the banks in installments they could afford, keeping people in their homes and banks afloat.

Social Security Act (SSA), 1935: provided financial assistance to: elderly, handicapped, paid for by employee and employer payroll contributions; required 7 years contributions, so first payouts were in 1942; still exists.

Works Progress Administration (WPA), 1935: a national labor program for more than 2 million unemployed; created useful construction work for unskilled men; also sewing projects for women and arts projects for unemployed artists, musicians and writers; ended 1943.

Fair Labor Standards Act 1938: established a maximum normal work week of 44 hours and a minimum wage of 40 cents/hour and outlawed most forms of child labor; still exists, hours have been lowered to 40 hours over the years.

Surplus Commodities Program, 1936

Rural Electrification Administration (REA): one of the federal executive departments of the United States government charged with providing public utilities (electricity, telephone, water, sewer) to rural areas in the U.S. via public-private partnerships. still exists.

"Most indexes worsened until the summer of 1932, which may be called the low point of the depression economically and psychologically".[238] Economic indicators show the American economy reached nadir in summer 1932 to February 1933, then began recovering until the recession of 1937–1938. Thus the Federal Reserve Industrial Production Index hit its low of 52.8 on July 1, 1932 and was practically unchanged at 54.3 on March 1, 1933, but by July 1, 1933 it reached 85.5 (with 1935–39 = 100 and for comparison 2005 = 1,342).[239] In Roosevelt's 12 years in office, the economy had an 8.5% compound annual growth of GDP,[240] the highest growth rate in the history of any industrial country,[241] but recovery was slow and by 1939 the gross domestic product (GDP) per adult was still 27% below trend.[197]

^March 4 was a Saturday and banks were not open on weekends. On Monday Roosevelt officially closed all banks. Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. The Coming of the New Deal (1959), p. 3; Brands, Traitor to his class (2008) p. 288.

^Jonathan Alter, The Defining Moment: FDR's Hundred Days and the Triumph of Hope, esp. ch. 31. (2007); Bureau of the Census, Historical Statistics of the United States (1977) series K220, N301.

^The phrase was perhaps borrowed from the title of Stuart Chase's book A New Deal published in February 1932 and serialized in the New Republic that summer. Gary Dean Best, Peddling panaceas: popular economists in the New Deal era (2005) p. 117.

^The phrase was also used by Gifford Pinchot in 1910, when he said in a speech rallying young men to political action to remove special interests from politics the following: "The people of the United States demand a new deal and a square deal". Address by Gifford Pinchot before the Roosevelt Club of St. Paul, Minnesota, June 11, 1910.

^Downey, Kirstin (2009). The Woman Behind the New Deal; The Life of Frances Perkins, FDR's Secretary of Labor and His Moral Conscience. New York: Nan A. Talese, an imprint of The Doubleday Publishing Group, a division of Random House, Inc. p. 1. ISBN978-0-385-51365-4.

^Cowie, Jefferson; Salvatore, Nick (2008). "The Long Exception: Rethinking the Place of the New Deal in American History". International Labor & Working-Class History. 74: 3–32. doi:10.1017/s0147547908000112.

^Quote from Mary Beth Norton, et al. A People and a Nation: A History of the United States (1994), 2:783. See also Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. The Coming of the New Deal, 1933–1935 (1958) p. ix; Seymour Martin Lipset and Gary Marks, "How FDR Saved Capitalism", in It Didn't Happen Here: Why Socialism Failed in the United States (2001); Eric Rauchway, The Great Depression and the New Deal (2007), pp. 86, 93–97; Cass R. Sunstein, The Second Bill of Rights: FDR's Unfinished Revolution, (2006) pp. 129–30; C. Wright Mills, The Power Elite (1959) 272–74; David Edwin Harrell, Jr. et al. Unto a Good Land: A History of the American People (2005) p. 921; William Leuchtenburg, The White House Looks South (2005) p. 121; Robert S. McElvaine, The Great Depression: America, 1929–1941 (1993) p. 168; Alan Brinkley, Liberalism and Its Discontents (1998) p. 66.

^Mary Beth Norton, Carol Sheriff und David M. Katzman, A People and a Nation: A History of the United States, Volume II: Since 1865, Wadsworth Inc Fulfillment, 2011, ISBN978-0495915904, p. 681

Bernstein, Barton J. "The New Deal: The Conservative Achievements of Liberal Reform". In Barton J. Bernstein, ed., Towards a New Past: Dissenting Essays in American History, pp. 263–88. (1968), an influential New Left attack on the New Deal.

Domhoff, G. William, and Michael J. Webber. Class and Power in the New Deal: Corporate Moderates, Southern Democrats, and the Liberal-Labor Coalition (Stanford University Press; 2011) 304 pp. uses class dominance theory to examine the Agricultural Adjustment Act, the National Labor Relations Act, and the Social Security Act.

Ekirch Jr., Arthur A. Ideologies and Utopias: The Impact of the New Deal on American Thought (1971)

Fraser, Steve and Gary Gerstle, eds., The Rise and Fall of the New Deal Order, (1989), essays focused on the long-term results.

Williams, Gloria-Yvonne. (2014). "African-Americans and the Politics of Race During the New Deal." In The New Deal and the Great Depression (pp. 131–44). Kent, OH:Kent State University Press. on academia.edu author's page

Williams, Mason B. City of Ambition: FDR, La Guardia, and the Making of Modern New York (2013)